Case Digest (G.R. No. L-28546)
Facts:
Venancio Castaneda and Nicetas Henson v. Pastor D. Ago, Lourdes Yu Ago and the Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-28546, July 30, 1975, Supreme Court First Division, Castro, J., writing for the Court.In 1955 petitioners Castaneda and Henson filed a replevin suit in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila against Pastor Ago to recover certain machineries (Civil Case No. 27251). A 1957 judgment in their favor was affirmed by this Court in Ago v. Castaneda, L-14066 (June 30, 1961). After remand the CFI Manila issued a writ of execution on August 25, 1961 for P172,923.87; the sheriff levied on Ago’s house and lots in Quezon City and advertised them for sale.
The sheriff conducted the auction and sold the properties on March 9, 1963 to petitioners; the final deed of sale was executed April 17, 1964, and the CFI issued a writ of possession in favor of the vendees. Pastor Ago unsuccessfully sought stays, injunctions and relief in several courts: he moved to stop the auction, filed certiorari petitions in the Court of Appeals and in this Court (the latter dismissed in minute resolutions, e.g., L-26116, L-27140), and repeatedly sought injunctions to prevent enforcement.
On May 2, 1964 Pastor Ago, now joined by his wife Lourdes Yu Ago, filed in the CFI of Quezon City Civil Case No. Q-7986 to annul the sheriff’s sale on the ground that Lourdes’s one-half conjugal share was not liable for Pastor Ago’s personal obligation; the QC court issued an ex parte preliminary injunction restraining registration and enforcement, later lifting and reimposing restraining orders intermittently. The Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. No. 39438-R, ultimately granted a permanent preliminary injunction on June 15, 1967 enjoining enforcement of the writ of possession i...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Does the doctrine of laches bar the Agos from challenging the levy and sale of the conjugal property?
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in granting a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of the writ of possession as to Lourdes Yu Ago’s alleged one-half conjugal share?
- Are the causes of action in Civil Case No. Q-7986 (including the supplemental and amended supplemental complaints) legally tenab...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)